September 2016 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Board Meeting 15 Sep 2016
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Sept. 20, 2016

Sept. 20, 2016

Folks, The ICANN Board will meet on 15 September 2016 in conjunction with its workshop. Here is the link to the meeting agenda https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/agenda-2016-09-15-en. Best regards, Rinalia

1 1

Consensus Call: Ratification of BCEC and BMSPC Membership
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 15, 2016

Sept. 15, 2016

This should have gone out last week but I did not send it as planned. With this message, I cam calling for the a consensus decision of the ALAC ratifying the membership of the 2017 BCEC and BMSPC as recommended by the RALOs. I ask for an ALAC Member to second this motion. BCEC Membership chaired by Julie Hammer: AFRALO Member: Fatimata Seye Sylla AFRALO Member: Mohamed El Bashir APRALO Member: Cheryl Langdon-Orr APRALO Member: Gunela Astbrink EURALO Member: Jordi Iparraguirre EURALO Member: Yrjö Länsipuro LACRALO Member: Carlos Raúl Gutierrez LACRALO Member: Vanda Scartezini NARALO Member: Louis Houle NARALO Member: Eduardo Diaz AFRALO Alternate: Dave Kissoondoyal APRALO Alternate: Anupam Agrawal EURALO Alternate: Wolf Ludwig LACRALO Alternate: Humberto Carrasco NARALO Alternate: Murray McKercher BMSPC Membership chaired by Tijani Ben Jemaa AFRALO Member: Seun Ojedeji AFRALO Member: Aziz Hilali APRALO Member: Ali AlMeshal APRALO Member: Shreedeep Rayamajhi EURALO Member: Oksana Prykhodko EURALO Member: Olivier Crépin-Leblond LACRALO Member: Dev Anand Teelucksingh LACRALO Member: Sylvia Herlein-Leite NARALO Member: Glenn McKnight NARALO Member: John Laprise AFRALO Alternate: Baudouin Schombe APRALO Alternate: Maureen Hilyard EURALO Alternate: Wolf Ludwig LACRALO Alternate: Maritza Aguero NARALO Alternate: Gordon Chillcott The consensus call will close at 23:59 UTC on Tuesday, 20 September. Initial meetings of the two groups should not be delayed pending formal ratification. Alan

2 1

Take the At-Large Review Survey!
by ICANN At-Large Staff Sept. 13, 2016

Sept. 13, 2016

Dear All, Help make At-Large a more efficient and effective part of the ICANN community – all are invited to take part in the At-Large Review survey: http://items.fr/atlargesurvey/ The At-Large Review is conducted by the Paris-based consultancy firm, ITEMS<http://www.items.fr/> who acts as the independent examiner. Taking (no more than) 30min to participate in the review via the online survey<http://items.fr/atlargesurvey/> will be an invaluable contribution to the success of this important review process. Whether you are the representative of an At-Large structure (ALS), a regular participant in ICANN meetings, an ICANN insider or a newcomer to the world of Internet governance, your opinion interests us! ITEMS will share the preliminary evaluation and findings of the survey during the ICANN57 Hyderabad Meeting. We urge you to fill in the survey<http://items.fr/atlargesurvey/> at your earliest convenience, make your voice heard! This is your opportunity to share your views on what’s working, what’s not working so well, and improvements that could be made. IMPORTANT: If you have an interruption and cannot complete the form make sure you go to the last page and submit the form first. Your answers will then be saved and you can return at a later stage, using the same device, and complete the survey, clicking ‘submit’ once more. Le sondage sera disponible en français en fin de semaine. Vous recevrez davantage d’information lorsque celui-ci sera en ligne. La encuesta se encontrará posteriormente disponible esta semana en español. Mayor información será notificada tan pronto sea posible. Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine, Terri Agnew and Yeşim Nazlar ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 0

Fwd: ICANN News Alert -- ICANN Board Brussels Workshop: Open Community Sessions
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 12, 2016

Sept. 12, 2016

This is the first that we have seen of the Board's commitment to open up their meetings. Unfortunately, board briefing materials for this meeting are not posted. Meetings are from 12:15-14:30 UTC. Alan >News Alert > > > ><https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-09-12-en>https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-09-12-en > >---------- > > >ICANN Board Brussels Workshop: Open Community Sessions > > > >12 September 2016 > >The next ICANN Board Workshop will be taking place in Brussels, >Belgium, from 14-17 September 2016. During the workshop, the Board >will be holding a series of open sessions, which will be held on >Saturday, 17 September. These sessions will include the following topics: > * The Impact of the New Bylaws on ICANN > * Accountability Work-Stream 2 (WS2) Topics > * A Technical Deep Dive: RIPE to Present > >Everyone in the community is invited to join these sessions, which >will be listen-only. More details, including the times of each >session and ways to join, are available at ><https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/2016-board-meetings>https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/2016-board-meetings

1 0

Motion to amend Rules of Procedure
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 10, 2016

Sept. 10, 2016

There have been no comments to the version of the ALAC Rules of Procedure Revision 3 (RoP Rev 3) as originally proposed on 18 August 2016 (http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/2016-August/009600.html) and revised on 31 August 2016 (http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/2016-August/009656.html) The motion below was made in the 18 August 2016 e-mail and seconded by Holly Raiche (http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/2016-August/009602.html) Attached are both a redline and clean version of the RoP as well as a log describing the changes. Note that Sections 23 and 24 only become operative if and when the IANA Transition occurs. This motion requires a super-majority (2/3) vote of the ALAC. I request that Staff initiate a vote of the ALAC to begin no later than Monday, 12 September 2016 and to end at 23:59 UTC on 19 September 2016. ===================================== Whereas the At-Large Advisory Committee is currently operating under Rules of Procedure (RoP) approved on 20 June 2016; Whereas a number of changes to these (RoP) have been recommended to correct errors, clarify specific rules, enhance transparency and implement the ICANN Empowered Community; Therefore; The ALAC adopts the attached revisions to the ALAC Rules of Procedure.

1 0

Consensus Call: ALAC Statements on IANA Agreements
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 9, 2016

Sept. 9, 2016

As discussed on the ALAC call of 23 August 2016 I was asked to draft very brief statements on the IANA Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and the IANA Naming Function Agreement (the agreement with PTI). I did so later that day. At the ALT meeting there was a wording change suggested to the Naming Function statement, which has since been incorporated. The IPR statement did not take into account changes that have been proposed during CWG meetings, and a minor change has been made so that our statement incorporates those as well. There have been no further comments on either statement. The policy pages can be found at: - <https://community.icann.org/x/tAusAw>IANA IPR Agreements - <https://community.icann.org/x/mAqsAw>IANA Naming Function Agreement For your convenience, the full text of the statements is reproduced below. With this e-mail, I am calling for a Consensus Call of the ALAC on these two statements. I request that another member second this and request that any objections be raised by ALAC Members prior to 14 September at 23:59 UTC. If you support these statements, no action is required. ==================================== The resolution of the Intellectual Property issues related to the IANA transition required significant effort from Members of all three IANA communities, ICANN, and legal counsel. The ALAC supports the final set of agreements and appreciates the efforts that were required to come to agreement in a timely manner. The ALAC supports the IANA Naming Function Agreement and deeply appreciates all of the efforts of CWG Members, ICANN Staff and external legal counsel in finalizing this agreement in a timely manner.

2 1

ICANN CEO responds to questions on IANA transition
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Sept. 9, 2016

Sept. 9, 2016

https://www.icann.org/iana-stewardship-questions

1 0

ICANN's response to IANA Transition negative propaganda
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 9, 2016

Sept. 9, 2016

ICANN has finally attempted a response to the negative transition propaganda: https://www.icann.org/iana-stewardship-questions, linked from a rather bland banner on the ICANN home page. Alan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [GTLD-WG] [ALAC-Announce] Call for Volunteers: Advisory Panel on gTLD Marketplace Health Index
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Sept. 8, 2016

Sept. 8, 2016

Dear Christopher, thank you for your comments. Please be so kind to find my comments inline: On 26/08/2016 23:53, CW Mail wrote: > Dear Olivier: > > I regret that I was not aware that this activity had been going on during the past year. > Actually, I do not understand the rationale for conducting a 'market health' activity in parallel with the CCCT review. They both address the same underlying issues. Yes and no. The CCCT review is a review that looks at the program as a whole and sees whether it has delivered what it promised to deliver. The Marketplace Health Index is a program implementation based on the CCCT review's prior work. > > Regarding the proposed metrics, I am rather perplexed. Interesting as they may be, they do not address any of the fundamental measurements of 'market health'. > Rather, we need to be looking at some basic - indeed classic - measurements of market performance (most of which are already reported to national statistical authorities), such as: > > 1. Financial turnover in recent years (e.g. last 5 years) of Registries and Registrars, normalised to a common exchange rate. Distinguish existing and new Registries and Registrars. Frankly I do not know how that would be obtained bearing in mind the significant number of Registries and Registrars that operate in jurisdictions or have an operational vehicle that do not mandate for the publication of audited accounts. > > 2. Market share data; degree of concentration or competition, rate of penetration of the 'new' gTLDs since they were launched. How have new gTLD registrations been financed? The first part of your suggestion is, I think, covered by the proposed ALAC comments made under "Competition", where we ask for the share of the market. As for the second part, how have new gTLD registrations been financed, how would you suggest this be found considering ICANN has absolutely no visibility over this? > > 3. Investment data: how much has been invested in the creation of new gTLDs; how much is invested by existing gTLDs. How was the investment financed? Again - where would this data be found when a significant number of actors operate without being required to submit such data? > > 4. Employment data: How many people work in this new industry? Distributed by Registries and Registrars. Distinguish existing large, medium sized entities and new gTLD entrants. > Distributed by geographic area. Again - how? I don't even think that the DNA (Domain Name Association) knows this. > > 5. Trade Data: We are looking at a branch of international trade in IT services. What proportion of existing and new turnover of Registries and Registrars derives from domestic (national) business and from international business (e.g. Registry business with Registrars in third countries and registrations by registrants in third countries.) I agree that this would be very helpful, but how would this data be gathered? Kindest regards, Olivier

1 0

ALAC Liaisons to AC/SO/.mobi
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 8, 2016

Sept. 8, 2016

In recent years, the ALAC, as provided in its RoP, has on occasion renewed some or all of its Liaisons without opening a formal call for nominations. In each case this was done as a conscious decision of the ALAC. Following last year's appointments, a few ALAC Members raised concerns about this process. Accordingly, I polled the ALAC Appointee Selection Committee this year. Of the 10 members, 6 responded and 5 of those recommended that we open full nominations for all positions. That of course includes the GAC Liaison where we had already decided to follow this path this year. Accordingly, a Call for Nominations will be issued shortly for the Liaisons for the GNSO, ccNSO, SSAC, GAC and .mobi. Alan

2 1

URGENT: SAC084 SSAC Comments on Guidelines for the Extended Process Similarity Review Panel (EPSRP) for the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 5, 2016

Sept. 5, 2016

The ALAC submitted a comment supporting the EPSRP report (https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=60493314) a report that we now see that the SSAC is strongly recommending that the Board not accept. In summary, we supported the recommendations which would facilitate the creation of IDN ccTLDs. The SSAC is saying that the recommended processes might make it easier to create IDN ccTLDs, but at the cost of increased risk which they consider unacceptable. I request that those who were involved in our statement as well our other IDN experts to advise on how to proceed. I note that the comment period has closed, but that does not preclude our submitting anything else to the Board. Alan At 01/09/2016 09:58 PM, Julie Hammer wrote: >Hi Everyone, > >SAC084: SSAC Comments on Guidelines for the Extended Process >Similarity Review Panel for the IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process (31 >August 2016) has been published on the SSAC documents web page at: ><https://www.icann.org/groups/ssac/documents>https://www.icann.org/groups/ssac/documents >with the file at ><https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-084-en.pdf>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-084-en.pdf. >It also has been posted to the Public Forum at: ><https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-proposed-epsrp-guidelines-20jul16/ms…>https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-proposed-epsrp-guidelines-20jul16/ms…. > > >In this report, the SSAC advises that it considers that the EPSRP >does not adhere to the principles of conservatism, inclusion and >stability which have been reflected in ICANN IDN guidelines that >have been in place for more than a decade. Adherence to these >principles is critical for the continued interoperability and >stability of the DNS root zone and deviation would increase the risk >of root zone instability. The underlying difficulty with all IDNs, >including those that are intended to be ccTLD names, is that >Internet domain naming does not work like natural language. This is >why a conservative approach to approving new IDN TLDs was adopted as >a principle. The EPSRP has not solved any part of this problem; it >simply provides a way around the original criteria, in a way that >increases the risk of instability in the DNS root zone. > >The Report recommends that the ICANN Board not accept the proposed >guidelines for the EPSRP, as those guidelines represent a threat to >the security and stability of the DNS. The Board should request a >revision of the guidelines that more accurately reflects the >principles of conservativism, inclusion, and stability. > >For information, two experts external to the SSAC (IETF Members, I >believe) participated in the Work Party that produced this report. > >Cheers, Julie

5 4

Re: [ALAC] Revised Rules of Procedure
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 3, 2016

Sept. 3, 2016

We have confirmation from ICANN Legal and the IANA Transition team that the proposed changes to our RoP satisfy the requirements for the Empowered Community. Alan At 31/08/2016 02:14 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >Following our discussion during the ALAC meeting on 23 August 2016, >I have incorporated the discussed changes and present them here. > >The changes include: > >Section 2: Definitions - a revised definition of Empowered Community. > >Paragraph 23.1: Minor corrections > >Paragraph 23.2: re-wording to address concern expressed by Tijani > >Paragraph 24.2: Clarification that unless extraordinary >circumstances warrant it, all decisions including those related to >Directors will be done by open vote. > >Paragraph 24.3: As per discussion, the change of the EC >Administrator will be done by standard ALAC Super-majority vote. > >Paragraph 24.4: Transition provision re-appointing current At-Large >Director under EC rules. > >I am requesting that Heidi check with ICANN Legal to ensure that the >new 23 and 24 cover our responsibilities under the new Bylaws. > >Alan >

4 3